telematica_analytics_distinct_ips_by_day

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('retorna'), but doesn't specify data format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 2 required), no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details, behavioral context, and usage guidelines. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, preventing a lower score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameter titles are generic (e.g., 'Source Id', 'Data Inicio'). The description adds no semantic information about parameters, such as what 'source_id' refers to, date format for 'data_inicio', or how 'top_n' affects results. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retorna serie temporal de IPs distintos por dia da conta' (Returns time series of distinct IPs per day for the account). It specifies the verb ('retorna'), resource ('IPs distintos'), and scope ('por dia da conta'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'telematica_list_ips', which might list IPs without temporal aggregation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as requiring 'source_id' and 'identificador_conta', or compare it to similar tools like 'telematica_list_ips' for non-temporal IP listings. Usage context is implied but not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.